He believes, based on the Bible, that being gay is a sin. That's it. He's never held back charity to gays, he's encouraged other Christians to be kind and to love gays. Ever heard "Hate the sin, love the sinner"?

Nobody can name a single thing Warren has don't to hate or harm gays. And don't say that the belief that it's a sin is hate. And being able to vote against something you don't believe in isn't hate, it's an actual civil right.

What about working for Prop 8? That kinda goes a little beyond 'voting' to me. Where is the kindness there? Perhaps in helping them to not *sin*? What if someone got a ballot initiative against practicing religion. Would you see working for that as 'just a civil right'?

Or saying that same-sex marriage is equal in badness to incest and statutory rape? Is that just another way of saying 'I hate the sin"?

A lot of what some ppl take as simple fact other ppl take as simply wrong.

Obviously the majority of Calfiornians supported Prop 8 also. The fact that Warren supported it as well doesn't make him some sort of dangerous fanatic or anything like that, it just means that he agrees with the majority of Americans about gay marriage. Obama has said that he is for civil unions but not gay marriage as well so I don't know why people are so surprised and betrayed by this choice.

And here are Warren's exact words concerning incest and gay marriage:

"The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

His point is that we shouldn't be redefining what we call marriage to any other definition. Nowhere in this quote does he state that same-sex marriages are equal in badness to incestual marriages.

So Warren's problem, like mine, is with with gay marriage. I have no problem with them getting the same death benefits, tax headaches, etc. that come with marriage. My problem is them calling it marriage. Marriage, as practiced here by most Americans, is a Christian thing. And the Bible is very specific on gay being a sin.

SO, change the word to union and do it outside of a church (courthouse? I did.) and move on.

:)

I'm sorry, I dont recall calling Warren a dangerous fanatic. I just said that I dont much consider working to prevent ppl from marrying such an act kindness. It rather seems to me to be an act of self-interest.

I havent looked into it that closely, b/c I for one am ok with civil unions, provided they are made as immediate, comprehensive, and universal as 'marriage' is, so I dont know if Warren was involved in spreading outrageous lies and rumors like many of the Prop 8 groups. The Mormon church seems to certainly have been. If Warren was involved in that sort of activity, then yeah, prolly I do view him as a dangerous fanatic, tho.

How does the Christian community feel about lies being told about them to influence policy? Or the tarring them all as hypocrits when one of the more sanctimonious ones go astray. Is that ok? I seem to recall that it isnt viewed so kindly, and I agree, altho prolly for different reasons than you might.

I am not going to split perceptions with you over the Warren quote. To me, it pretty much supports what I said—two of the three things he compared are considered perverse practices by pretty much everyone, not just 52% of the population or something, as you might think for same-sex relations.

I will split hairs on one thing tho—his point is that *he* thinks *we* shouldnt be 'redefining what we call marriage' to any other definition, and I certainly dont consider myself part of that 'we.'

So Warren's problem, like mine, is with with gay marriage. I have no problem with them getting the same death benefits, tax headaches, etc. that come with marriage. My problem is them calling it marriage. Marriage, as practiced here by most Americans, is a Christian thing. And the Bible is very specific on gay being a sin.

I don't believe you are correct that marriage as practiced here is a "Christian thing." If it is, the state should step back -- way back!

But I think it's the legal contract with its innumerable benefits that we're talking about. Getting married as a sacrament of a religious institution is up to the participants and the institution to define. Legally it's a different thing. Marriage's legal definition has certainly changed just in my lifetime in regards to the woman partner's legal rights within the contract and vis a vis the world at large. It's also changed regarding the acceptable racial composition of the partners. To perceive marriage as a static thing is not accurate. To label it as a "Christian thing" as opposed to a "human thing" means government -- federal, state and local -- should have no part in it at all.

Let's all have secular civil unions and put marriage back in the religious context so many wish to force it into.

octobia:

I don't believe you are correct that marriage as practiced here is a "Christian thing."

As most Americans practice it. Read before you post.

octobia:

Let's all have secular civil unions and put marriage back in the religious context so many wish to force it into.

Indeed.

The entire institution of marriage has evolved dramatically since biblical days of tribal desert societies. Marriage was between a man and as many women as he wished to take. Men in the bible have sex with multiple women, bear children with servants, concubines, relatives of wives, etc. I don't think that this is exactly the portrait of the traditional Ozzie and Harriet nuclear family that conservatives have in mind when they talk about "one man, one woman" in marriage. Marriage was a patriarchal property arrangement. Nothing about marriage in those times bear any semblance to our contemporary notions about equality in the division of household labor, decision-making, and legal rights in marriage between men and women. Marriage was a way of preserving the patriarchal line of ancestral inheritance. Women in biblical times could not divorce their husbands, while a man could. A wife was considered among a father's possessions until she was her husband's possession. A woman could be stoned if she was not a virgin at the time of marriage (but clearly a man received no such penalty). As many biblical verses point out, a woman must submit to the dominance of her husband.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Eccles. 42:13-14)

(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: "...Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.

Is this seriously the world that we want to turn to as a model for our marital relationships? Why can't we as a civil, secular society make laws that are fair to everyone? You cannot use the Bible to defend the "one man, one woman" argument when nearly everything it says about marriage and the status of each gender in a relationship have nothing to do with our current understanding of equality for each partner. Do we really want a world in which one partner is the "head" and "lord" of another? Then stop using the Bible to defend discrimination against millions of people who want the same rights as everyone else!

Also, if we want say that civil marriage rights are tied to religious recognition of marriage, then what about the several religious denominations that DO support same sex marriage? I mean, some of you want to deny civil marriage rights to gays because there are some religions that condemn it, but there are also religious denominations that support it. So if you really want to make civil marriage all about religious belief, you would need to grant legal recognition to same sex partnerships performed by clergy in supportive denominations.

Also, to the person who sees marriage as a Christian institution in the US -- ouch!! I guess my marriage, officiated by a rabbi, doesn't count. I guess you don't read the constitution much....the fact that the majority of Americans happen to be Christian does not make us a Christian nation.

Lizzie:

the fact that the majority of Americans happen to be Christian does not make us a Christian nation.

Yes it does.

Yes it does.

No it doesn’t. We are a secular society and a multi-religious nation.

I am thinking the ppl against same-sex marriage are bothered nearly by a man marrying several women as they are by ppl of the same sex marrying, b/c of the sexual aspects. At least with polygamy, it was all straight sex.

Besides, I think the ppl against same sex marriage are mostly pretty traditional, with 'women submit yourselves to your husbands' and such (Warren and his followers certainly promote this), so prolly arent so bent out of shape about what your quotes mean for women. Also, ironically enough, I have had ppl who were railing against same-sex marriage b/c it wasnt real marriage that 'times were different back then.' So what they really seem to mean is not 'I want to maintain tradition from ancient times,' it is "I want to keep living in the 19th century.'

Caerolle:

Actually, I agree on the union thing! If we didnt call it marriage, it would just sidestep the whole issue.

If you choose to go this route, more power to you. I'll have whatever you're having. (In fact, my wife and I did try to get civil-unioned but the Peace Corps wouldn't recognise our partnership that way, so we had to get plain-old vanilla married.)

If you do decide to call it something else, you should call it 'arriage-may' just to freak people out.